This video popped up in my You Boob feed.

https://youtu.be/Ag6-25dv7vM

Instantly, it reminded me of our jets. Is this a real case of the Chinese stealing our stealth technology? Was there a big breach of Lockheed, etc? What year? Just curious, no tinfoil hats or anything, but it shares some striking resemblance, especially the front and cockpit areas. Caught me off guard a bit.

China steals everything they can get their hands on, and values our airplane tech more than almost anything else.

Not sure why it would be a surprise that they mimic our stealth fighter tech.

I read a couple 3 years back, it took them 19 months to build their copy of a YF22. I doubt its exact and how can that fighter be stealthy with double giant engine heat signatures?

The problem with Chinese jets is that after you feed them fuel, they are hungry for more fuel a couple hours later.

Remember why we "accidentally" bombed their embassy is Sarajevo about 25 yrs ago - they had possession of an F-117 that had gone down over Yugo. They steal what they can. We haven't done much about it since the war in Yugo.

Yes it’s a mish-mash of stolen Russian and US tech and from what I read, our experts still can’t see what this is supposed to be used as. It’s way too big to be an effective fighter and too small to be an effective bomber.

You can see the stolen F-22 and F-35 cues all over this thing.

See the SU-27 (or variant) at the beginning of the video? One of the most beautiful modern fighters, IMO, and it looks a LOT like an F-15.

Part of this is due to espionage. Of course, the Sovs and Chicoms would/will steal every bit of tech they could get, as they were traditionally behind in such high-tech areas compared to the West. Why spend time and money developing tech when you can just steal it and get a head start? This is why the Su-27 resembles the F-15, the TU-144 SST resembled the Concorde, and the Buran shuttle resembled the US shuttle.

However, the laws of physics and aerodynamics are the same over the US, the USSR, and China. Supersonic interceptors like the F-15/SU-27 resemble each other since form follows function. This is why the Su-27 resembles the F-15, the TU-144 SST resembled the Concorde, and the Buran shuttle resembled the US shuttle.

Now, in this case, I'm no aerodynamicist, but that thing (new Chinese 'stealth' fighter) looks like garbage. I'm sure it's better than the MiG-21 knock-offs they have been flying since the 1960s, but I would wager it is nowhere NEAR as effective as the F-22 or F-35. Also, 'stealth' is a VERY sophisticated technology. One would have to put one of those on a radar test range to really see how 'stealthy' it really is.

I'm also sure there has been a lot of espionage (military and industrial) going on. This happened during the Cold War, and there is no reason it would stop now. However, it is still a Chinese home-built aircraft, and therefore, I would put any US Navy or USAF pilot in an F-18 or F-16 against this POS any day of the week.

Airframes are one thing. Engines another. They burn through turbine blades and their engines have half the life of a P&W or GE variant. Make no mistake, The Chinese make wondrous airframes & copies from they materials they’ve stolen. When they finally succeed in stealing our jet engine technology, we’re fucked..

That aircraft got beaten with an ugly stick.

Is there anything the Chinese won't pirate?

I seem to recall reading somewhere that China had difficulty copying the “stealth” part of stealth airframes. Probably the surface material. Just because it looks stealthy doesn’t mean it actually is.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee:
Remember why we "accidentally" bombed their embassy is Sarajevo about 25 yrs ago - they had possession of an F-117 that had gone down over Yugo. They steal what they can. We haven't done much about it since the war in Yugo.

I wish your last sentence was correct but unfortunately the chicoms have been after US tech and continue to get their hands on it. As an example do you remember the stealth helicopter that crashed in the OBL raid…

https://youtu.be/4NITZgn8dWw

They may have moving displays that looks like our stealth fighters but have you seen one actually flying?
They require a computer to keep it stable also.
They don't have the software or all the data to keep it in flight.

quote:

Originally posted by ScreamingCockatoo:
They may have moving displays that looks like our stealth fighters but have you seen one actually flying?
They require a computer to keep it stable also.
They don't have the software or all the data to keep it in flight.

The F-117 is first generation stealth. It was so angular and blocky because computing power in the 80s meant they could only calculate flat surfaces for the 'low observable' aspects. There were no large curved surfaces on the aircraft.

The B-2, conversely, had few flat/straight surfaces. It was very curvy, since we had better computer power and programs to calculate sophisticated surfaces. The B-2 is 2nd or 3rd gen stealth, IIRC.

Both aircraft, as SC indicated, could not be flown without computer control. They called the -117 the 'Wobbly Goblin' because of the way it flew. Even the B-2 pilots do not 'fly' the aircraft - they tell the computer what they want and the computer flies the aircraft.

The B-2 crash in Guam happened because the air sensor probes were giving bad data. As the aircraft pitched up on takeoff, both pilots pushed their sticks forward, but the cimputer ignored their input, leading to a stall and crash.

The B-2's flight control system makes dozens (or more) small corrections per second to keep the aircraft stable. No human could ever do this. Flying wings are typically unstable.

The F-22 is more advanced (developed in the 80s) and the F-35 more so (developed in the 2000s). Both have vertical surfaces, but our advanced understanding of stealth principles allowed this. Technologically, the F-35 and F-117 are as far apart as a Tesla and a 1955 Chevy. . .

One cannot determine this aircraft's 'stealthiness' just by its looks.

Thank you for everyone that replied with explanations. Makes sense and pretty much what I figured but I damn well knew someone was more informed than me. Thanks again.

Anyone notice the REAR UNDER tail vertical wings ??? As someone mentioned, this is needed and used because their computer and software is not good enough to stabilize the aircraft. This also makes the aircraft not that stealthy. God Bless

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
I seem to recall reading somewhere that China had difficulty copying the “stealth” part of stealth airframes. Probably the surface material. Just because it looks stealthy doesn’t mean it actually is.

I knew someone who painted stealth aircraft. The paint definitely has something to do with the stealthiness.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

I knew someone who painted stealth aircraft. The paint definitely has something to do with the stealthiness.

Paint.
Shape.
Materials.
Engine inlets.
Engine exhaust.
Cockpit placement.
Weapons bay doors.
Overall quality of finish.
Manufacturing to very precise tolerances.
Door, hatch, panel size, shape, and fit.
Any damage or dents to the aircraft.

These ALL (and a bunch I couldnt think of off the top of my head) play into determining how 'stealthy' a plane is, even IF it was designed well (and I am not convinced this one was). A problem with any one aspect can ruin the entire thing.

My guess is that the secret squirrel alphabet agencies already know whether it is stealthy or not.
Just as likely they've been war gaming for this almost since the tech was stolen.

I don't mean to underestimate an enemy, just thinking that it's pretty tough to keep secrets anymore if you have enough money to spend.

Did they steal/utilize US aircraft tech/design, yup. I don't think there's any debate here on this one, there's certainly a lot of 'influence' that compares very closely to the US F-22 and F-35.

All indicators is the aircraft is designed to shoot-down, US airborne early warning, electronic warfare and tanker aircraft using long-range PL-15 and very long range PL-21 missiles. Most of its stealth technology is in its head-on profile, versus the rest of the airframe, giving it a better chance at approaching those early warning aircraft in order to eliminate them and degrade US air superiority and network coordination advantages. Designed to fly high and far, it can likely dogfight but, it's a very large aircraft so, maneuverability isn't a very important aspect to its design compared to range and long-distance anti-air capability.